NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1508 __________ CAROL BANGURA, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA SENATE; PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR ANTHONY WILLIAMS, in his individual capacity; MARLENE HENEKIN, in her individual capacity; DESAREE JONES, in her individual capacity ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-03626) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 2, 2019 Before: JORDAN, BIBAS and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 3, 2019) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se appellant Carol Bangura appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants in her employment discrimination lawsuit. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm. I. We write primarily for the parties; because they are familiar with the facts, we will note them only as they become necessary to our analysis. Bangura was born in Sierra Leone and she speaks English as a second language. She was employed by the Pennsylvania State Senate as a scheduler for Senator Anthony Williams from March 2014 until her termination in September 2014 for poor performance. In July 2016, Bangura filed her complaint in the District Court. In her operative third amended complaint,1 she named as defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Senate, Senator Williams, Marlene Henkin, and Desaree Jones. Bangura brought claims of race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against all of the defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 1 During the course of the proceedings, the District Court dismissed multiple claims against various defendants. Any issues relating to the dismissed claims are waived, as Bangura has not argued those issues on appeal. See United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[A]n appellant’s failure to identify or argue an issue in his opening brief constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal.”). Bangura has also waived any issues regarding her requests for appointment of counsel. To the extent that Bangura challenges the District Court’s discovery rulings, the District Court did not abuse its discretion. See Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 281 (3d Cir. 2010) (“We review a district court’s discovery orders for abuse of discretion, and will not disturb such an order absent a showing of actual and substantial prejudice.”). 2 and 1983. Bangura also brought disability discrimination claims against the Commonwealth under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and against all the defendants under the PHRA. The defendants filed various cross-claims and moved for summary judgment. On February 28, 2019, the District Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Bangura’s claims. On March 1, 2019, Bangura filed her notice of appeal from that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals